Re: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"]

On Friday, October 15, 2004, 12:10:37 PM, Bristol) wrote:

>> I'm arguing that the dog resource would in Patrick's 
>> definition be an IR because it has a body of information (its 
WSHLB>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
WSHLB> This is not Patricks defn!

>> medical records) but should not be an IR (per Basel def.).

WSHLB> Patricks defn is: "An "information resource" is a resource which
WSHLB> constitutes a body of information."

WSHLB> Deeper in his message [1] he says "Why not simply state that an
WSHLB> "information resource" *is*
WSHLB> information -- i.e. a body of information???"

WSHLB> I take him be using the word 'constitutes' in the sense of 'is'.

If it means "is" in the sense of "is solely" then its the same as the
basel definition.

 Chris Lilley          
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group

Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 18:05:41 UTC